You are on page 1of 3

1. G.R. No.

L-51997 September 10, 1981



Facts: Petitioner-spouses Inocencio H. Gonzales and Rosario Esquivel Gonzales obtained a

housing loan of P80,000.00 from the respondent GSIS. This was to be repayable within fifteen
years at 6% interest per annum for the first P30,000.00 and pay for the balance. GSIS accepted
as collaterals two (2) residential lots located in Quezon City, and two (2) agricultural lands.
Petitioners were able to pay several monthly installments of P814.38 until both of them retired
compulsorily from government service in 1973, leaving an unpaid obligation of over P 135,884.87
because of accumulated interests or arrearages. By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 the
agricultural lands of petitioners were subdivided and awarded by the DAR to the tenant-farmers In
effect, the bonds were given a creditable value of only P41,775.00 compared to its face value of

Issue: Whether the GSIS may be compelled to accept Land Bank bonds at face value in payment
of outstanding loans secured partially by lands taken by the land bank.

Held: The fact that only one agricultural land of the four securities was placed under land reform
should make no difference. Although it may be conceded that the obligation of the petitioners is,
in a sense, divisible because it can be settled partially according to current practice, it does not
render the mortgage of four (4) parcels of land also divisible. Generally the divisibility of the
principal obligation is not affected by the indivisibility of the mortgage. The mortgage obligation
is indivisible; that is, it cannot be divided among the different lots. A real estate mortgage
voluntarily constituted by the debtor on two or more parcels of land is one and indivisible. Each
and every parcel under mortgage answers for the totality of the debt. Being indivisible, the full
value of the one parcel being paid for by the Land Bank should be applied in full to the
outstanding loan obligation without any discounting. To hold that the acceptance of the bonds at
par value should be limited only to the loan value of properties acquired by the Land Bank but
should be discounted as to other lands not so acquired, would not only run counter to the
principle of indivisibility of a mortgage but would also reduce the bond payment to the
dispossessed landowner by approximately one-half, to his complete detriment. This is a
consequence that neither law, equity, nor justice would countenance.

3. Betita vs. Ganzon

Facts: On May 15, 1924, the defendant Alejo de la Flor recovered a judgment against Tiburcia
Buhayan for the sum of P140. Under this judgment the defendant Ganzon, as sheriff levied
execution on the carabaos in question which were found in the possession of one Simon Jacinto
but registered in the name of Tiburcia Buhayan. Betita presented a 3 party claim alleging that
the carabaos had been mortgaged to him and as evidence presented a document, but the sheriff
proceeded with sale of the animals at public auction where they were purchases by the defendant
Perdena for the sum of P200, hece this petition.

Issue: Whether there was a valid chattel mortgage or plegde.

Held: No. it does not meet the requirements of Chattel Mortgage law, has not been recorded and,
considered as a chattel mortgage, is consequently of no effect as against 3 parties. Neither did
the document constitute a sufficient pledge of the property valid against third parties. Article 1865
of the Civil Code provides that "no pledge shall be effective as against third parties unless
evidence of its date appears in a public instrument." The document in question is not public, but it
is suggested that its filing with the sheriff in connection with the terceria gave in the effect of a
public instrument and served to fix the date of the pledge, and that it therefore fulfills the
requirements of article 1865. Assuming, without conceding, that the filing of the document with
the sheriff had that effect, it seems nevertheless obvious that the pledge only became effective as
against the plaintiff in execution from the date of the filing and did not rise superior to the
execution attachment previously levied. In the present case the animals in question were in the
possession of Tiburcia Buhayan and Simon Jacinto before the alleged pledge was entered into
and apparently remained with them until the execution was levied, and there was no actual
delivery of possession to the plaintiff himself. There was therefore in reality no change in

5. BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Avenido

Facts: The spouses Avenido obtained from the BPI Family Savings Bank a loan in the amount
of P2,000,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage on a parcel of land situated in Bais City. The
spouses Avenido failed to pay their loan obligation despite demand, prompting BPI Family to
institute before the Sheriff of Bais City extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings over the mortgaged
property. At the public auction sale held on March 8, 1999, BPI Family was the highest bidder for
the foreclosed property. The bid price of P2,142,616.00 of BPI Family was applied as partial
payment of the mortgage obligation of the spouses Avenido, which had amounted
to P2,917,381.43 on the date of the public auction sale, thus, still leaving an unpaid amount
of P794,765.43. The spouses Avenido averred therein that they had already paid a substantial
amount to BPI Family, which could not be less than P1,000,000.00, but due to the imposition by
BPI Family of unreasonable charges and penalties on their principal obligation, their payments
seemed insignificant. The controversy herein now only revolves around the value to be attributed
to the foreclosed property, which would be applied against the outstanding loan obligation of the
spouses Avenido to BPI family.

ISSUE: Whether BPI Family is still entitled to collect the deficiency mortgage obligation from the
Sps. Avenido.

Held: Yes. It is settled that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the
debtor. If the legislature had intended to deny the creditor the right to sue for any deficiency
resulting from the foreclosure of a security given to guarantee an obligation, the law would
expressly so provide. The creditor is not precluded from taking action to recover any unpaid
balance on the principal obligation simply because he chose to extrajudicially foreclose the real
estate mortgage. Thereafter, if the amount adjudged remains unpaid, it will be subject to interest
at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the time the judgment became final and executory
until fully satisfied.

7. di ko nakuha ung title ng case haha

9. Danao Vs. CA

Facts: Private complainant Luviminda Macasieb is in the business of rediscounting checks. Arturo
Estrada, the branch manager of the Monte de Piedad bank at Pasay City was one of her agents,
authorized to transact rediscounting business with any person for and in behalf of the private

"Sometime in December 1991, appellant (Evangeline Danao) went to see Arturo Estrada at his
office to seek an additional loan, being a depositor and borrower of the bank. Estrada had to
refuse appellant's request, considering that her existing loan had not yet been fully liquidated.
Appellant then asked Estrada if he knew a private lender. Estrada informed appellant that he
knew one who lends money with postdated checks as security. Appellant agreed to
the arrangement, Estrada phoned private complainant Luviminda Macasieb and told her of
appellant's desire to get a loan with postdated checks as security. After appellant received the
said amount from Estrada, she issued two postdated checks in the total amount of P29,750.00.
On the maturity dates of the two checks, private complainant deposited the same at the PCIB
Branch at Heroes Hill, Quezon City. However, the checks were dishonored for the reason that the
account of appellant had already been closed. Macasieb later received check slips together with
the returned checks. The returned checks bear the stamped words "ACCOUNT CLOSED".
Estrada informed appellant of the dishonor of the checks and asked her to redeem the same but
to no avail.

ISSUE: whether Evangeline Danao had already paid the subject account even before the
complainant’s letter of demand.

HELD: In the present case, no proof of receipt by petitioner of any notice of non-payment of
the checks was ever presented during the trial. As found by the trial court itself, "(t)he evidence
however is not clear when Macasieb (private complainant) made the demands. There is no
proof of the date when DANAO received the demand letter. Obviously, in the instant case, there
is no way of determining when the 5-day period prescribed in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 would start
and end. Thus, the presumption or prima facie evidence of knowledge by the petitioner of the
insufficiency of funds or credit at the times she issued the checks did not arise.
It is clear that the essential element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit on the
part of petitioner is absent in the case at bar, not having been proved by the prosecution. On this
ground alone, petitioner should be acquitted